Friday 7th February 2003
Ramming Speed
Traffic is the biggest killer of teenagers. So what do we do? Buy more killing machines...
Discussion
The thing that really annoys me about the statistic used in the ad about the children 'Biggest killer of 12-16 year olds' is that its deliberately phrased to sound awful but the fact is its common sense and will probably always be that way because except for a few tragic exceptions, not many 12-16 year olds die at all, and the ones that do are most likely to die in accidents. Its just the old unthinking 'Think of the children' dogma again, tugging at the heartstrings...
There is a remarkable explosion in the popularity of these huge 4x4 behemoths that simply cannot be impact friendly to pedestrians (or other cars for that matter). In fact - that's the whole point of them (for most purchasers).
I fully accept that many people have a darn good reason for having a Rangie/X5/Landcruiser etc but clearly there are many who now have them to
a) Make going over speed bumps less awful
b) Make being involved in an accident less awful (for the owner)
If the traffic planners want pedestrians who get hit by cars to suffer less - they should try and encourage people not to buy 4x4s. Sticking bumps in the middle of the road does exactly the opposite.
Joined up thinking - NOT!
Edited to say: Even better to seperate pedestrians and vehicles wherever possible to they're not there to be run over in the first place...
>> Edited by Don on Friday 7th February 12:20
I fully accept that many people have a darn good reason for having a Rangie/X5/Landcruiser etc but clearly there are many who now have them to
a) Make going over speed bumps less awful
b) Make being involved in an accident less awful (for the owner)
If the traffic planners want pedestrians who get hit by cars to suffer less - they should try and encourage people not to buy 4x4s. Sticking bumps in the middle of the road does exactly the opposite.
Joined up thinking - NOT!
Edited to say: Even better to seperate pedestrians and vehicles wherever possible to they're not there to be run over in the first place...
>> Edited by Don on Friday 7th February 12:20
I think the prevalence of these things is, aside from perceived status, down to to maxim "momentum is best". Surrounding onself and family with as much metal as possible because the driver is convinced of either their own unsuitability for driving or that of others. In many cases, they are not incorrect.
Speed bumps and their like are not even a problem to normal saloon cars, they just tend to glide over them, on the school run. It's only people with lower cars who have to slow.
As for the bars people have fitted to make sure the job on the pedestrian (or other vehicle) is really done properly, I have for a long time referred to these as "kiddie-killers" rather than the more macho "bull-bars" [or the rather camp(imho) "'roo-bars"]. It doesn't make much difference to people's attitudes, particularly, as I don't know too many people who have them fitted. Still, I like to think I'm doing my bit.
edit for bad punctuation. (I know, it's long over-due...)
Speed bumps and their like are not even a problem to normal saloon cars, they just tend to glide over them, on the school run. It's only people with lower cars who have to slow.
As for the bars people have fitted to make sure the job on the pedestrian (or other vehicle) is really done properly, I have for a long time referred to these as "kiddie-killers" rather than the more macho "bull-bars" [or the rather camp(imho) "'roo-bars"]. It doesn't make much difference to people's attitudes, particularly, as I don't know too many people who have them fitted. Still, I like to think I'm doing my bit.
edit for bad punctuation. (I know, it's long over-due...)
Edited by whatever on Monday 25th September 10:54
Interesting. In the NCAP tests, my X5 got a single star for pedestrian impact (on the newer 'stringent' pedestrian tests)
Looking at other SUV's - they vary between zero and 3 stars.
However, most suprising is that a large number of "normal" cars get zero or one star.
Conculsion - my X5 is no better and no worse than a large chunk of "normal" cars.
Results are at www.euroncap.com/results.htm if you want to look at it yourself - remember the pedestrian tests have changed though - so you can only compare blue stars with blue stars, or green with green.
J
Got that URL right now.
>> Edited by joust on Sunday 9th February 17:13
>> Edited by joust on Sunday 9th February 17:14
Looking at other SUV's - they vary between zero and 3 stars.
However, most suprising is that a large number of "normal" cars get zero or one star.
Conculsion - my X5 is no better and no worse than a large chunk of "normal" cars.
Results are at www.euroncap.com/results.htm if you want to look at it yourself - remember the pedestrian tests have changed though - so you can only compare blue stars with blue stars, or green with green.
J
Got that URL right now.
>> Edited by joust on Sunday 9th February 17:13
>> Edited by joust on Sunday 9th February 17:14
As mentioned, my own strongest criticism of the "don't run kids over" ad is that it doesn't give the slightest suggestion that the child shouldn't have been in the road in the first place.
Granted, speeding through towns and housing estates is anti social and highly inadvisable, but I still think it would behove us to warn kids to spend as little time as possible in the road, and to learn how and where they should look out for traffic.
The cynic in me says that however many really kids are killed by cars, a good number have no one but themselves to blame and it's just natural selection.
Granted, speeding through towns and housing estates is anti social and highly inadvisable, but I still think it would behove us to warn kids to spend as little time as possible in the road, and to learn how and where they should look out for traffic.
The cynic in me says that however many really kids are killed by cars, a good number have no one but themselves to blame and it's just natural selection.
That ad also doesn't metion the fact that with a little knowledge of car control the car could have been driven around the kid. In fact I would think it took quite a bit of practice whilst making that ad to force the wheels to lock so suddenly and skid for so long at just 3?mph.
And yes, this ad is shown at times when kids will be watching but it doesn't dare to suggest that they may look before running across a road.
Whatever happened to the tufty club.
And yes, this ad is shown at times when kids will be watching but it doesn't dare to suggest that they may look before running across a road.
Whatever happened to the tufty club.
Whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? I suggest a new set of adverts with the likes of David Beckham and other celebs with their kids crossing the road safely...
When I was younger it was practically drilled into us at school and tv adverts just got the message across to everybody...
They should start a new campaign, posters in schools etc. involve the kids and they will learn...
>> Edited by xsaravtr on Friday 7th February 14:49
When I was younger it was practically drilled into us at school and tv adverts just got the message across to everybody...
They should start a new campaign, posters in schools etc. involve the kids and they will learn...
>> Edited by xsaravtr on Friday 7th February 14:49
It's digitally created
sparkey said: That ad also doesn't metion the fact that with a little knowledge of car control the car could have been driven around the kid. In fact I would think it took quite a bit of practice whilst making that ad to force the wheels to lock so suddenly and skid for so long at just 3?mph.
. It's done for "effect" - in the same mode as any other successful advertising campaign is done. Your taking it all too literally because you are interested in the subject matter (bit like me and the sections of the "Internet" on any current movie or documentary
no - it isn't like that FFS!) - it's not aimed at you, it's aimed at the 99% of the population who won't take the advert apart from a 'technical' perspective. J
Joust has it right and that's what the author of this 4X4-bashing article didn't heed; that anyone would attach real significance to what type of vehicle ran over the kid. The commercial "creators" (probably clueless, pansy, film school students fresh out of college who are no friends to RV trucks) just wanted to use as imposing an image as possible so picked out a big truck. "99% of all children are killed by traffic" may well be manipulation of statistics that REALLY says: "99% of all children are killed in traffic accidents INSIDE their own cars"! That's how propaganda works. A little misinformation here and there, like when "THEY" say that alcohol is involved in 50% of traffic fatalities. What they don't tell you is that figure includes drunk kids walking out in front of sober motorists, or drunk people being driven home by sober motorists who wreck, or sober motorists causing a wreck with someone who's been drinking etc, etc. Read between the lines fellow gearheads. 
These guys are targeting CARS in general with more “control” envisioned for your driving pleasure.
The U.S. media fooled 50 years worth of Americans into regulating away any semblance of freedom we formerly had in 100 arenas of activities. If we drive 6 mph over the pathetic 55,65 or 70 mph limits we get tagged for a $300 ticket.
But for God's sake don't blame any certain TYPE of vehicle. I have a 97' Chevy Tahoe that looks like an assault vehicle in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie but it has never hit anyone and it's wicked profile isn't relevant to any realistic vehicle terrorism theory that it will ever come into contact with a human body. It does very often however come into play when mowing down large thorny bushes here at my ranch in Texas!
The U.S. media fooled 50 years worth of Americans into regulating away any semblance of freedom we formerly had in 100 arenas of activities. If we drive 6 mph over the pathetic 55,65 or 70 mph limits we get tagged for a $300 ticket. But for God's sake don't blame any certain TYPE of vehicle. I have a 97' Chevy Tahoe that looks like an assault vehicle in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie but it has never hit anyone and it's wicked profile isn't relevant to any realistic vehicle terrorism theory that it will ever come into contact with a human body. It does very often however come into play when mowing down large thorny bushes here at my ranch in Texas!
Brought the ticket home,
I agree with this bit;-
a) Make going over speed bumps less awful
b) Make being involved in an accident less awful (for the owner)
And why not? I have just refitted my "A" bar. It's made of 3mm thick plastic, weighs quite a lot, and has NO SHARP EDGES. Infact it adds quite a lot of extra "crumple" to the capacious crumple zones, while protecting it against car park numpties. It is also TUV + insurance approved.
Being hit by any car must be bad, but I'd hate to be hit by a low car, as it would break your legs. Atleast a blunt fronted 4x4 spreads the load.
I think this article is in danger of being another 4x4 basher, if not replied to correctly.
I love my 4x4, it's easily the most comfy car I have owned, and protected me in a high speed crash. I feel relaxed driving it at sensible speeds, and if I want excitement it delivers opposite-lock action in 2wd mode.
Oh, and I have a bike. Go figure.
C
a) Make going over speed bumps less awful
b) Make being involved in an accident less awful (for the owner)
And why not? I have just refitted my "A" bar. It's made of 3mm thick plastic, weighs quite a lot, and has NO SHARP EDGES. Infact it adds quite a lot of extra "crumple" to the capacious crumple zones, while protecting it against car park numpties. It is also TUV + insurance approved.
Being hit by any car must be bad, but I'd hate to be hit by a low car, as it would break your legs. Atleast a blunt fronted 4x4 spreads the load.
I think this article is in danger of being another 4x4 basher, if not replied to correctly.
I love my 4x4, it's easily the most comfy car I have owned, and protected me in a high speed crash. I feel relaxed driving it at sensible speeds, and if I want excitement it delivers opposite-lock action in 2wd mode.
Oh, and I have a bike. Go figure.
C
I personally think the EuroNCAP is flatly quite flawed and makes little sense, personally.
They assess pedestrian damage when the driver of the car hits one, but do they assess the damage done by the vehicle to OTHER passanger vehicles? Something Volvo looked at and many truck manufacturers have looked at?
No. These are not looked at by EuroNCAP. As such, cars like the X5/LandCruiser/LandRover etc can be as dangerous as a house of daggers to other vehicles, and they suffer no penalty to their safety ratings because of it.
MX5 (1005kg or so) driver makes a mistake, runs into a Corolla (The ubiquitous small 5 door hatch) or Mondeo, and while the 5 driver is perhaps not in as good a shape as a tank driver, he's ok. Also, the 5 people in the Mondeo are shaken, hurt, but ultimately, not half dead.
ML500 (2100kg!?) driver makes a mistake, and it runs into a Corolla or Mondeo? We officially now have a barely dented Merc and one hell of a mess. (This is before we factor in braking.
Yet the Euro NCAP says that an ML500 is as 'safe' as an MX5. Oh HELL no.
An M series is designed not to be safe, but to DO WELL in the Euro NCAP program like any car. The ENCAP puts the X5 into somewhat deformable objects for crashes, and the rigid pole.
How to pass? Massive rigidity in the sides (Good in any car, kudos to the tests bringing this up) but also, because of the mass of a car, the front also needs to be more rigid for heavier cars, because it has more mass to progressively crumple. Fair enough, no use a flimsy crumple on a heavy car. But...
A Mondeo has less mass than an X5, so it's crumpling zone will be applying less force to the object it hits, it simply needs less force to slow the car down progressively. And the NCAP only measures the deformation in the car, not the car it may have just hit.
You can't get around it, there's only 110 or so cm in in a bonnet's length to cushion the blow, and in that time you need to reduce your car's momentum. The force difference between Sante Fe and Getz is huge.
So in short, I dislike bigass land yachts not because they cushion their drivers in a crash. Hell no. I dislike and refuse to drive them because if you do not use it for a real reason, it's potentially damn dangerous to anyone else! Like driving a Mazda 6 with a 2 foot spike on the bonnet. It won't hurt ME when I crash...
A Boxster driver who screws up will not crush underwheel a Cayenne driver. A Cayenne Driver however, may just achieve the reverse depending. I don't berate a Cayenne if the driver heads bush every so often. But damn, half will never see a sandy beach or mountain path more than half a dozen times.
Buy an old gen 5 series and hire a Cruiser those very very few times you want to adventure. Cheaper and better at their respective jobs.
They assess pedestrian damage when the driver of the car hits one, but do they assess the damage done by the vehicle to OTHER passanger vehicles? Something Volvo looked at and many truck manufacturers have looked at?
No. These are not looked at by EuroNCAP. As such, cars like the X5/LandCruiser/LandRover etc can be as dangerous as a house of daggers to other vehicles, and they suffer no penalty to their safety ratings because of it.
MX5 (1005kg or so) driver makes a mistake, runs into a Corolla (The ubiquitous small 5 door hatch) or Mondeo, and while the 5 driver is perhaps not in as good a shape as a tank driver, he's ok. Also, the 5 people in the Mondeo are shaken, hurt, but ultimately, not half dead.
ML500 (2100kg!?) driver makes a mistake, and it runs into a Corolla or Mondeo? We officially now have a barely dented Merc and one hell of a mess. (This is before we factor in braking.
Yet the Euro NCAP says that an ML500 is as 'safe' as an MX5. Oh HELL no.
An M series is designed not to be safe, but to DO WELL in the Euro NCAP program like any car. The ENCAP puts the X5 into somewhat deformable objects for crashes, and the rigid pole.
How to pass? Massive rigidity in the sides (Good in any car, kudos to the tests bringing this up) but also, because of the mass of a car, the front also needs to be more rigid for heavier cars, because it has more mass to progressively crumple. Fair enough, no use a flimsy crumple on a heavy car. But...
A Mondeo has less mass than an X5, so it's crumpling zone will be applying less force to the object it hits, it simply needs less force to slow the car down progressively. And the NCAP only measures the deformation in the car, not the car it may have just hit.
You can't get around it, there's only 110 or so cm in in a bonnet's length to cushion the blow, and in that time you need to reduce your car's momentum. The force difference between Sante Fe and Getz is huge.
So in short, I dislike bigass land yachts not because they cushion their drivers in a crash. Hell no. I dislike and refuse to drive them because if you do not use it for a real reason, it's potentially damn dangerous to anyone else! Like driving a Mazda 6 with a 2 foot spike on the bonnet. It won't hurt ME when I crash...
A Boxster driver who screws up will not crush underwheel a Cayenne driver. A Cayenne Driver however, may just achieve the reverse depending. I don't berate a Cayenne if the driver heads bush every so often. But damn, half will never see a sandy beach or mountain path more than half a dozen times.
Buy an old gen 5 series and hire a Cruiser those very very few times you want to adventure. Cheaper and better at their respective jobs.
golem, does this mean that I should dislike ALL cars because they may injure me when I'm on my bike?
By extension, ALL motor vehicle should be banned because they are dangerous to pedestrians.....
Your reasoning does not stand up if you are an enthuisiast.
C
(edited to add..)
Also, we have a Smart car. This towers over a Cerb or Griff. Would you like this lightweight practical city car banned as well? probably, 'cos it would mash most fibre glass sportscars to a pulp.
>> Edited by hertsbiker on Sunday 14th March 12:08
By extension, ALL motor vehicle should be banned because they are dangerous to pedestrians.....
Your reasoning does not stand up if you are an enthuisiast.
C
(edited to add..)
Also, we have a Smart car. This towers over a Cerb or Griff. Would you like this lightweight practical city car banned as well? probably, 'cos it would mash most fibre glass sportscars to a pulp.
>> Edited by hertsbiker on Sunday 14th March 12:08
Quote.
"I dislike and refuse to drive them because if you do not use it for a real reason, it's potentially damn dangerous to anyone else!"
End Quote.
What annoys me isn' people who tow caravans and live on farms or cart gear about in these things. generally, they're safer than courier vans all around (last hiace I saw unladen had scary low stability in wind.)
But I damn well know alot of them will never venture outside a city more than a very few times. I know people who would like one because it's 'Safe' and 'Comfortable'. My point is, so's a 5 series in comparison to an X5. Only differance is, you don't punt a Smart 20metres when you hit it in a 5 series, you might only punt it 16 or so, not allowing for braking. And when you react to a situation with a violent yank on the wheel, as many people do, hence why they now have the pole into side test, the 5 has that extra stability to fight off a roll with.
I just tend to think physics are against SUV's when it comes to true safety. Anything you can put in something that by necessity has a high ground clearance and towing capacities / off road abilities, you can put in something a bit more stable and it'll weigh less to boot all other things such as body rigidity being equal.
I can see a point to them, but the myth surrounding their supposed 'safety' is a bit of a myth. It'd be nice if they put in the ENCAP some kind of guage towards braking (on the OEM tyres), lanechange / stability performance, DSC performance, and finally a 'subject damage' rating.
if you're going to assess how much damage a car does to pedestrians, you should assess how much damage a car does to other cars by use of some kind of standard model.
Finally, publish a score within category, and a score across category. i don't think SUV's will all do badly. Volvo and BMW put a lot of work into making theirs do well. But it would give a truer indicator of the safety of the cars. As it is, the tests are too simple and therefore a bit misleading. Particularly as manufacturers start aiming to make their cars pass tests without thinking to advance other areas their cars might be lacking in. Laden braking performance for example? It's food for thought.
Same as this overly simplistic view of road safety. Speed kills. Duh. But so does a damn bigass list of other things like inadequate mandatory training level and experiance to get a license, problems such as fatigue and car maintenance, age of cars etc ad infinitum.
"I dislike and refuse to drive them because if you do not use it for a real reason, it's potentially damn dangerous to anyone else!"
End Quote.
What annoys me isn' people who tow caravans and live on farms or cart gear about in these things. generally, they're safer than courier vans all around (last hiace I saw unladen had scary low stability in wind.)
But I damn well know alot of them will never venture outside a city more than a very few times. I know people who would like one because it's 'Safe' and 'Comfortable'. My point is, so's a 5 series in comparison to an X5. Only differance is, you don't punt a Smart 20metres when you hit it in a 5 series, you might only punt it 16 or so, not allowing for braking. And when you react to a situation with a violent yank on the wheel, as many people do, hence why they now have the pole into side test, the 5 has that extra stability to fight off a roll with.
I just tend to think physics are against SUV's when it comes to true safety. Anything you can put in something that by necessity has a high ground clearance and towing capacities / off road abilities, you can put in something a bit more stable and it'll weigh less to boot all other things such as body rigidity being equal.
I can see a point to them, but the myth surrounding their supposed 'safety' is a bit of a myth. It'd be nice if they put in the ENCAP some kind of guage towards braking (on the OEM tyres), lanechange / stability performance, DSC performance, and finally a 'subject damage' rating.
if you're going to assess how much damage a car does to pedestrians, you should assess how much damage a car does to other cars by use of some kind of standard model.
Finally, publish a score within category, and a score across category. i don't think SUV's will all do badly. Volvo and BMW put a lot of work into making theirs do well. But it would give a truer indicator of the safety of the cars. As it is, the tests are too simple and therefore a bit misleading. Particularly as manufacturers start aiming to make their cars pass tests without thinking to advance other areas their cars might be lacking in. Laden braking performance for example? It's food for thought.
Same as this overly simplistic view of road safety. Speed kills. Duh. But so does a damn bigass list of other things like inadequate mandatory training level and experiance to get a license, problems such as fatigue and car maintenance, age of cars etc ad infinitum.
So should we ban 4 x 4's cos they're big and unwieldy and designed for off roading anyway? We should ban sports cars too in that case, I mean what is the point in having a 5 litre car designed for a race track? More errosion of freedom through social engineering and brainwashing.
>> Edited by apache on Monday 15th March 07:48
>> Edited by apache on Monday 15th March 07:48
hertsbiker said:
Being hit by any car must be bad, but I'd hate to be hit by a low car, as it would break your legs. Atleast a blunt fronted 4x4 spreads the load.
I think you missed the issue there. Low car breaks your legs and your head slams into the bonnet, if there is enough space between the bonnet and the engine your ok ish.. All that removes some of the energy of the impact. Getting hit with a 4x4 just caves in your skull at the same time as your ribs go through your lungs. Particularly if the bull/kiddy killer bar is the same height as your skull.
Having been hit with a car as a cyclist waiting at a junction, i'm glad it was a low bonnet that i landed on, not a 4x4 breaking my head.
IMHO if you want a 4x4 you need a licence showing that you need to go off road. You dont have that then you cant drive one.
Munter said:
IMHO if you want a 4x4 you need a licence showing that you need to go off road. You dont have that then you cant drive one.
Don't even start down this route! or I will have to insist that YOU need a special license to drive a sportscar. Atleast I have more categories on my license due to passing the bike test, so I can feel smug about it.
Anyway, what kills most, 4x4's, or trucks? right. So start arguing about trucks. You'll lose.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff